October 1, 2014 --

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in his address to the United Nations, September 26, noted that this is the International Year of Solidarity With the Palestinian people, and accused Israel of choosing "to make it a year of a new war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestine people." The Abbas speech clearly caused some problems with the Obama Administration.

The State Department called the speech "counterproductive" and "offensive." President Obama, in his address to the UN two days before the Abbas speech, stated: "'The violence engulfing the [Middle East] today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace,' adding "That's something worthy of reflection within Israel.'"

For LPR, this comment is quite remarkable. The Hamas Charter rejects peace negotiations with Israel for Jihad to destroy the Jewish State, and President Obama has determined that Israelis are abandoning "the hard work of peace."

A news story in The New York Times, September 26, included the observation that "Israel...considers Hamas a terrorist organization and does not have direct dealings with it...." LPR wonders how The New York Times and, indeed, the Obama Administration truly regard Hamas. The September 26 Times story did not mention that the Hamas Charter, in Article 13, rejects peace negotiations with Israel. Does The New York Times recommend that Israel deal directly with a group that intends its destruction?

The New York Times gave minimal attention to the September 29 address to the UN by Israel's Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu who indicated that Abbas "shamelessly accused Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing." The Times reported Netanyahu's warnings about the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, but ignored his remarks on the bias directed at Israel by the UN's Human Rights Council.

Netanyahu indicated that condemnation of Israel during the recent conflict in Gaza against Hamas "is not a function of Israel's policies. It's a function of diseased minds, and that disease has a name: Anti-Semitism."

In his remarks, Netanyahu pointed out: " Israel, which took unprecedented steps to minimize civilian casualties -- Israel is condemned. Hamas, which both targets and hid behind civilians -- that's a double war crime -- Hamas is given a pass."

(Will someone explain why the United Nations has not risen en masse against the barbarity of the "militant Islam" [Netanyahu's term] practiced by ISIS?)

Netanyahu predicted that the condemnation of Israel for fighting an enemy that employs human shield will legitimize the use of human shields in warfare. On this point, LPR disagrees. Only concerning Israel are the use of human shields ignored -- by critics of the Jewish State. Why? Because, as Netanyahu suggested, these critics are, by and large, motivated by Anti-Semitism. Netanyahu explained that the lies once leveled against the Jewish people are now directed against the Jewish State. For an example of an address at the UN filled with the canards of an anti-Semite now aimed at Israel, see the text of the Abbas speech, a text that would indicate that for Abbas, The International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is to be observed with blood libels directed against the Jewish State -- with the ultimate aim of establishing the one-state solution -- of the Islamic State of Palestine rising from Israel's ashes.